

*Nuclear Chaos and the Comprehensive Compliance Equation*
Naji Al-Ghazi / Political and Economic Researcher
Prince Turki Al-Faisal wrote an important article in The National, marking a pivotal moment in Gulf political discourse and the broader Arab world. Coming from a figure of Prince Turki's stature—a former security official, diplomat, and son of King Faisal—the article elevates it from an opinion piece to a strategic message addressed to Western capitals.
What he said was not an emotional outburst or propaganda, but rather a systematic and profound critique of the structure of the international system, centered on the fact that the Dimona reactor is not just a nuclear facility, but living proof of the collapse of the principle of international justice, and the transformation of the "rules-based order" into a tool of nuclear apartheid, punishing the weak and protecting the strong.
*First: Dimona as a symbol of the fall of international nuclear legitimacy*
The prince points out that Israel possesses a complete nuclear arsenal outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and outside the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This in itself is not new, but what is new is that this description comes from an official Gulf figure, with unprecedented clarity, coupled with an indirect—but extremely dangerous—call to apply the principle of justice through force: "If we were in a just world, B2 bombs would have rained down on Dimona."
Here, the prince is not just talking about a moral principle, but about a complete legal collapse: when a country is allowed to violate the non-proliferation regime for decades, without any inspection or accountability, while others are threatened with bombing for even considering peaceful enrichment, the international system is dead.
*Second: When power rules and justice is absent*
The text—both through the prince and the accompanying analysis—points to a dangerous transitional moment: the international order is no longer based on law, but on naked power. There are no longer standards, but rather acquiescence, subjugation, and exceptions.
America, in this context, has not fallen as a major power, but it has fallen morally and strategically as a reference system. It now, according to the article, is behaving as a "rogue state," not as the leader of the free world. This description is important because it shifts the conversation from blaming American policy to delegitimizing it internationally.
*Third: The threat is not only directed at Iran*
Here's one of the prince's most astute comparisons: Why are Iran's statements about the "annihilation of Israel" considered an existential threat, while Netanyahu's repeated statements since 1996 about the destruction of the Iranian regime are not considered a counter-threat?
This is not only a dismantling of the double standard, but also reveals the true purpose of escalation against Iran: it is not a direct confrontation, but rather a tool to tame the entire region, especially the Gulf states.
Targeting Iran, as the prince interprets it, is a “symbolic punitive act,” intended to send a message: nuclear deterrence is the exclusive domain of Israel, and any attempt by others—even for peaceful purposes—will be met with bombing and humiliation.
*Fourth: Diplomatic violence*
Here, Prince Turki's speech moves from the public to between the lines.
When he says that the bombing of Iran was accompanied by billions in financial demands from Saudi Arabia, he reveals the beginning of a phase of "strategic blackmail," in which "military dominance" is used as leverage to extract political and financial gains from allies, not enemies.
In other words, targeting Iran was an indirect message to the Gulf states: “Either you submit completely to a new American-Israeli leadership in the region, or you are next.”
*Fifth: If Trump were fair, he would have bombed Dimona*
This sentence was said by the prince, "If Trump were fair, he would have bombed Dimona." This sentence itself may resonate in the Western and Israeli media because it destroys the *myth of Israeli nuclear immunity* and moves the Gulf from the position of a "spectator" to that of a bold observer who calls things by their names.
The sentence doesn't actually call for bombing Dimona, but it does implicitly say, "Either the rules apply to everyone, or no rule has legitimacy."
One of the most serious points made in the article is the prince's warning that "trust between rulers and ruled in Western capitals is eroding." He cites the example of Muslim candidate Zahran Mamdani's victory in New York, despite his anti-Israel and anti-Zionist positions.
This shift in Western public opinion—supporting Palestine, breaking the fear of lobbies, and exposing the double standards of discourse—carries a *rebound force* that will pressure Western governments sooner or later. This is a strategic asset that Arabs must build upon, rather than simply relying on intergovernmental relations.
*Sixth: The last message*
What the prince ultimately said is that the non-proliferation regime has lost all meaning. It has become a sword in the hands of the West, pointed only at its adversaries, not a tool for balancing the balance and preventing war. At the moment of truth, the Arabs are told: You are a flexible material that can be shaped as needed. The real message behind the bombing of Iran is: *You are also targeted, and deterrence is the exclusive right of Israel alone.*
The article, despite its calm tone, carries within its lines the seeds of a Gulf political rebellion against the old formula of alliance with Washington. The rhetoric of hard power, financial blackmail, and Israeli immunity are no longer acceptable.
Prince Turki's voice represents *the voice of an elite Saudi movement that has begun to reject the humiliation of sovereignty in exchange for protection.* This does not necessarily mean the disintegration of the alliance, but it does mean redefining its terms and perhaps reversing the equation: from dependency to balance.
What Prince Turki al-Faisal said in his bold lines is not just an opinion, but a *strategic document* that outlines a new phase in the relationship between the Gulf and the West, and sounds the alarm about the coming nuclear chaos if the West continues to protect the exception for Israel at the expense of the stability of the entire region.
Indeed, a powerful analysis and position of the Price, diplomatically expressed but factual and direct, addressing a situation dating some long decades, and now exploding with the latest cruel developments engulfing the entire region, and possibly the world soon.
As always my profound many thanks to all.